RE APPIAH SAMUEL

CAMP 154/2023, [2024] HKCA 770

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 154 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2123 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

1.  On 17 January 2024, this Court handed down its decision ([2024] HKCA 45)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 10 February 2023 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim. 

2.  On 8 February 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 20 February 2024.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.   We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’)  (Cap. 484)  provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The applicant stated the following in the notice of motion in summary :

1)  The applicant will not receive a fair trial due to a corrupt system in his country;

2)  The applicant’s friend died in police custody, and this friend was the applicant’s only witness;

3)  The police are still looking for the applicant in Ghana because the murder of one of the applicant’s kidnappers is still an on-going investigation;

4)  Aunt A is politically influential;

5)  If the applicant goes back he will not receive a fair trial as his only witness is dead; and

6)  The police will make sure the applicant goes to jail.

7.  In summary the applicant stated the following in the written submissions :

1)  The applicant’s aunt told the applicant that the police were still looking for him and urged him not to leave the country;

2)  The applicant left the country as he was scared of being kidnapped again or even killed;

3)  There is no police assistance near where the applicant lived;

4)  The country is corrupt and the applicant will not receive a fair trial;

5)  An Auntie F has influence in the police department; and

6)  The applicant was told that he would not receive free government lawyer.

8.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  All the matters contained in the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission are matters that are within the province of the Board.  They do not show how or where the Board made any error of law or procedural unfairness, or how the Judge erred in law.

9.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

10.  Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.